Hot Topics:

Council gets an earful on LHS project

By Todd Feathers, tfeathers@lowellsun.com

Updated:
06/06/2017 11:30:42 PM EDT

LOWELL -- The City Council delved into the specifics of the four remaining options for the new Lowell High School on Tuesday, taking a particularly close look at the non-reimbursable infrastructure costs that would be required to build a high school at Cawley Stadium.

Those on each side of the downtown versus Cawley Stadium location debate found information to support their positions in the presentations from city officials and representatives from project manager Skanska, which came a week before the council will vote to select a final option.

Although the meeting continued past The Sun's deadline Tuesday, and Skanska had not made its detailed presentation on the four options for the new Lowell High.

A downtown high school would have a "minimal" impact on traffic, City Traffic Engineer Nicolas Bosonetto told the council, while a high school at Cawley Stadium would lead to traffic increases on Douglas and Clark roads, which bookend the site, of between 222 percent and 542 percent during peak times.

Improving the infrastructure to accommodate the increase in vehicle and foot traffic would cost at least $2.75 million and would necessitate that the city acquire, possibly through eminent domain, land along Rogers Street to construct a left-hand turn lane. That could lead to increased costs.

That land-taking could affect several commercial properties, although it is not yet clear whether it would impede upon the buildings or just land.

Advertisement

"You can't stick your head in the sand and say 'there's no eminent domain at Cawley," said Councilor Jim Milinazzo, who has leaned toward downtown Option Three, which would require the city to acquire a medical office building adjacent to the current school.

Councilor Rodney Elliott suggested that those in favor of Option Three were being hypocritical by exaggerating their concern for the eminent domain takings that would be required for a Cawley school, but advocating eminent domain downtown.

Councilors who have leaned toward the Cawley option seized on a report from the Department of Planning and Development, with the input of five independent developers, that suggested the current school could be redeveloped into a variety of desirable options, including market-rate housing and retail space.

"We could have luxury apartments with people with disposable income so that students aren't the engine that drives economic development downtown," Councilor Rita Mercier said.

The relocation of more than 3,000 students to Cawley would have an impact on downtown businesses that cater to them, according to another DPD report, but the loss of business would likely not be severe enough to force any of them to close. The majority of downtown businesses did not respond to the survey.

City officials also updated the council on the ongoing efforts to remove Article 97 conservation restrictions on fields at Cawley Stadium that would have to be razed to make way for a high school. A bill that would lift the restrictions is currently in the Legislature, and the city has received preliminary approval on its plan to replace those fields elsewhere.

The replacement plan would actually create more open and field space than currently exists, but would come at a cost of $1.97 million.

The back-and-forth between councilors over the cost of infrastructure and other ancillary issues highlighted their desires to save money wherever possible on a project that is projected to cost the city at least $130 million.

"It's an educational decision, there's no two ways about it, but there are economics to this," Councilor Corey Belanger said. "The prices are in, all the information is in, and it's very, very expensive."

Councilor Elliott suggested that it is "never too late in the process to revisit" the project given the cost estimates.

The deadline for a decision is approaching, however.

The School Building Committee, a 19-member body formed to review the high school project, was scheduled to cast a non-binding vote on Thursday to recommend a final option. That vote has been pushed back until Tuesday, June 13, so that the three councilors who sit on the committee -- Elliott, Bill Samaras and Mayor Edward Kennedy -- can attend three public forums before casting their votes.

Later that evening, the council is scheduled to cast its final vote to select which option the city will pursue.

Following the presentation of the various studies on Tuesday, residents had a chance to weigh in. Many took the opportunity to advocate for one option or another, but there was an overarching theme to their comments: Do the right thing for the children, and do it quickly.

"With this big packet, you have all the information you need," said Dan Dhanahan, referring to the 127-page informational packet on the project councilors received last week. "Let's not delay this vote next Tuesday."

Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)
Comments made here are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; these comments do not reflect the opinion of The Sun. So keep it civil.